Loading…
Registration open daily from 8am - 6pm.  Please join us for the #ISSS2015 #Roundtable at 7.45am each morning.

Sign up or log in to bookmark your favorites and sync them to your phone or calendar.

SIG Session [clear filter]
Wednesday, August 5
 

16:00 CEST

Governing the Anthropocene; A Question of Accountability

Institute of Technology, 1900 Commerce St., Box 358426, Tacoma WA 98402, gmobus@uw.edu

The natural world of life is replete with examples of systemic governance subsystems that operate to sustain the continuance of those systems. Every cell, organism, population, and ecosystem demonstrates various self-regulation and environmental coordination mechanisms that have evolved to ensure the long-term viability of that system. A formal approach from systems science that is built on these natural governance subsystems may provide some guidance to our understanding of human social systems and their governance. The emergence of higher levels of organization in the origins and evolution of life can be seen to be the story of increasing sophistication in governance subsystems as disparate complex adaptive systems coalesce into “societies” of interacting entities (super-molecules to primitive protocells, prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic cells, those to multicellular organisms, those to communities, etc.). At each stage in this on-going emergence of higher levels of organization the one consistent aspect is how hierarchical cybernetic structures have contributed to the stabilization of functional relations among the component entities leading to sustainable super-entity structures. The progression is from simple cooperation of multiple entities to intentional coordination emerging to manage complexity. Information processing and decision subsystems (agents) that took responsibility for logistical coordination among components and others that managed tactical coordination of the whole system with external (environmental) entities, resources, and threats evolved to keep increasingly complex biological entities able to maintain their existence and reproduction. Now the governance of human social systems that seek to exist in some kind of harmony with the Earth’s ecology (what I call the Ecos) has emerged in the last 100k years or so and evolved over that time frame to produce the modern socio-economic systems in existence today. But it (characterized here as the neoliberal capitalistic democracy) is not as evolved as, say, the mechanisms of metabolic regulation. There are numerous reasons to believe that the modern governance subsystem is, in fact, moving human societies toward the opposite of sustainable existence. A systems examination of the theory of governance subsystems (hierarchical cybernetics) suggests pathways toward a more functional governance subsystem for human societies. The theory covers the regulation of economic flows as well as the legal superstructure and moral/ethical aspects of culture that collectively constitutes the governance subsystem of a human society embedded in a meta-system, the Ecos.


Presenter / Artist
avatar for John Vodonick

John Vodonick

SIG Chair: Systemic Ethics, Exploratory Group: Business Systems Laboratory, Two Ravens Consulting
I teach, write and consult in the areas of corporate social responsibility, change management, organizational design and social ethics. Most organizations come to a place in their evolution when the needs of the stakeholders are not being met and if that continues to be the norm the... Read More →


Wednesday August 5, 2015 16:00 - 16:30 CEST
Copenhagen 1 Scandic Berlin Potsdamer Platz, Gabriele-Tergit-Promenade 19, 10963 Berlin, Germany

16:30 CEST

Drawing Upon a Levinasian Ethics in Systemic Interventions

Systems thinkers have been interested in different problem contexts including organizational and social contexts. Multiple systems approaches have been considered relevant to understand and tackle problems in these types of contexts. These systems approaches are underpinned by different ontological, epistemological, and ethical assumptions. In this paper we offer an alternative conception of what a systems approach might be by drawing upon the work of Emmanuel Levinas. This alternative conception is grounded on the notion that the relationship between the Same and the Other is the locus where both knowledge and ethics are involved. Ethics is conceived as the rise of responsibility that emerges in the encounter with the “face of the other”. “Face”, which does not mean here “human face”, involves a particular encounter with infinity. The latter is something beyond knowledge, an alterity irreducible to totality. The desire to consider the Other as part of a totality with the Same frequently implies reducing the Other to the Same and failing to embrace the Other’s alterity. Some professional interventions study and deal with organizations and social phenomena ignoring or trying to counteract the alterity of the Other. The notion of intentionality implicit in these interventions reveals to the observer a world that is constantly his/her own possession. With the denial of alterity the unity of reason as comprehension and knowledge imposes itself. The rationalities of others are rejected. We argue against these interventions that impose upon the world the products of my mind, that subsume the Other under the hegemony of the ‘I’ and ethics under the notion of knowledge. Our rejection of privileging the totality of being is also a rejection of the unity of reason. Drawing upon a Levinasian ethics we argue in favor of systems approaches that conceive the world as a multiplicity rather than a totality, and that are moved by a desire towards that which transcends me and my categories, that strives towards alterity. We encourage systems approaches that foster the responsibility that arises in the face of the Other, that encourage the ‘I’ to be taught by the Other, that call the identity of the systems thinker into question. We propose systemic interventions guided by a metaphysical desire that tends toward the other, but without producing the disappearance of distance. This preservation implies a difficulty in reuniting under one gaze the Same and the Other, a difficulty that poses ethical problems to the ideal of total comprehensiveness that is common in many systems approaches. The aforementioned difficulty arises when we conceive a system exclusively as a totality. Although we think that this notion has to be preserved we argue in favor of also preserving the notion of infinity. To cope with these two notions in a single systemic intervention, we propose using a logic of “both/and” rather than a logic of “either/or”. Hence the systems approach that we propose aims at preserving both totality and infinity as well as Same and Other. We illustrate our ideas by presenting a systemic intervention that uses them to design a conflict resolution program for young people that is being used in rural areas of Colombia.


Presenter / Artist
LP

Luis Pinzon-Salcedo

Associate Professor, Universidad de los Andes
ISSS Dev


Wednesday August 5, 2015 16:30 - 17:00 CEST
Copenhagen 1 Scandic Berlin Potsdamer Platz, Gabriele-Tergit-Promenade 19, 10963 Berlin, Germany